Viewpoint: Sign of Peace at Mass Needs to Maintain a Public Character

by Msgr. M. Francis Mannion

The Catholic liturgical tradition regards the Sign of Peace at Mass as a disciplined and restrained public gesture, and not an affectionate gesture of intimacy and friendship. In fact, the peace sign is designed for people who, for the most part, do not even know each otherโ€™s names.

This derives from the fact that the liturgical assembly is not (and is not meant to be) a gathering of friends and intimates. In my view, it is a mistake to view those gathered in worship as friends and โ€œfriends who havenโ€™t yet met.โ€

While the liturgical assembly includes spouses, family members and friends, for the most part it does not. It is generally a mixed gathering of neighbors, fellow citizens, and persons who are (and will remain) strangers to each other.

Indeed, the Eucharistic gathering is more like a town meeting than a community of intimates. It is a public rather than an intimate grouping.

Saying this goes against the strong emphasis on small group intimacy and interpersonal relationships popular in liturgical spirituality today? Many pastors and people appear to have absorbed from the culture at large a bias toward intimacy and against publicness. Indeed, our culture sets such store on privacy and intimacy that the small group is regarded today as the only humanly authentic social grouping. This explains why many parishes have over the years been busy attempting to turn liturgical assemblies into intimate gatherings of family and friends, and why they think anything less is intolerable and inauthentic.

By contrast, I believe that the Church needs to redeem publicness and challenge assumptions about intimacy that have their origin more in modern group therapy theory than in the Gospel.

Accordingly, I would hold that the Sign of Peace should not be regarded primarily as an intimate gesture, but as a public sign expressing fellow citizenship in Christ. It should retain its traditional role as a sign shared between people of goodwill, whether they know each other or not. The peace sign is not designed to turn people into friends, but to express the graciousness of all kinds and degrees of relationships in the public world.

What about the practice of spouses, relatives, and friends–people who know each other well–kissing and hugging each other during the Sign of Peace? The practice is probably here to stay, and pastors would be foolish to lose much sleep over it.

Yet, it should be kept in mind that when we gather for the Eucharist we come together as sons and daughters of God who are all equally related by baptism. For the moment, the stranger and the marginal person are as close to us as spouse and children.

Certainly, the Eucharist does not abrogate spousal and familial relationships, but it does set before us an order of things beyond all human degrees of relationship.

This is why the Sign of Peace is not meaningless when shared between strangers and only meaningful when exchanged between intimates. Indeed, the peace sign is never more meaningful then when shared between strangers, or those separated by human barriers of various kinds. The Sign of Peace declares: โ€œWe may be strangers at the human level, but not in Godโ€™s scheme of things.โ€

The Sign of Peace before Communion is an eschatological sign, by which I mean a sign of the way things will be in the Kingdom of God, in which the present world of division, racism, hostility, and suspicion will have passed away.

Msgr. Mannion is pastor emeritus of St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Salt Lake City. Reprinted by permission of Catholic News Agency.

Francis Mannion

Please leave a reply.

Comments

6 responses to “Viewpoint: Sign of Peace at Mass Needs to Maintain a Public Character”

  1. Fr. Neil Xavier O'Donoghue

    I’m not sure that I can agree with the statement that “the peace sign is designed for people who, for the most part, do not even know each otherโ€™s names.” During the vast majority of the history of the Church, most Christians knew the other people they worshipped with. Even in much of the 20th century, the city parishes formed little villages in the bigger cities.

    Yes this may be the case in many of our big cities today that people do not know those they worship with. But surely our eucharisitic fellowship must include knowing our neighbour. Christianity is not “me and Jesus”, but there has to be a real community. I consider this to be a real problem of our contemporary parishes, something we need to fight against and not accommodate. Yes if there is someone attending Mass that I do not personally know I can meaningfully greet him, but the sign of Peace is better shared with those I know, those I have fought with and forgiven and those who have forgiven me!

    JP II put it very well speaking to the Canadian bishops:

    “The anonymity of the city cannot be allowed to enter our Eucharistic communities. New ways and structures must be found to build bridges between people, so that there really is that experience of mutual acceptance and closeness which Christian fellowship requires. It may be that this, and the catechesis which must accompany it, would be better done in smaller communities: as the Post-Synodal Exhortation puts it, “one way of renewing parishes, especially urgent for parishes in larger cities, might be to consider the parish as a community of communities”. This will need to be done wisely, lest it lead to new forms of fragmentation; but its potential advantage is that “in such a human context, it will be easier to gather to hear the word of God, to reflect on the range of human problems in the light of this word, and gradually to make responsible decisions inspired by the all-embracing love of Christ”

    http://w2.vatican

  2. I sort of agree and disagree with Msgr. Mannion. The sign of peace is a ritualized sign of intimate friendship rather than an act of intimate friendship. Certainly I don’t embrace our pastor at the sign of peace in the same way that I embrace my wife in our home. At the same time, as a sign it points to an eschatological fulfillment that will be intimate friendship—indeed, something far more intimate than any friendship that we experience in this life. So I don’t entirely agree that the sign of peace is not about friendship. After all, in John’s Gospel “friendship” is a significant way of characterizing our relationship with Christ.

    At the same time, I do think that, practically speaking, a significant problem arises when people use the exchange of peace for actual acts of friendship rather than a ritual sign of friendship. The problem is that this divides the assembly into those who are our actual friends and those who are merely “ritual” friends. When I take the sign of peace as an opportunity to inquire about someone’s children or their plans for the weekend, I draw a division between myself and those with whom I have exchanged a “mere” ritual greeting.

    On the third hand, when I am standing next to my wife at the sign of peace (which doesn’t happen all that often, given my liturgical duties), it feels artificial (in a bad way) for me to greet her in the same way that I greet a stranger. Perhaps if the sign of peace were more highly ritualized (along the traditional lines of the hands-on-the-shoulder-and-elbow kiss of peace) rather than a simple handshake I would not feel compelled to exchange it is different ways with different people.

  3. Ed Stoops

    I watched the Popeโ€™s Holy Thursday Mass at Rebibbia Prison. The sign of peace between prisoners and guards was deeply moving.

  4. Jordan Zarembo

    The most vibrant and orthodox parishes I have attended have omitted the “handshake of peace” at all times. The stylized ritual exchange of the pax should be reserved for the celebrant and ministers, and only for solemn occasions. I agree with Msgr. Mannion that most laypeople cannot grasp that pax vobis sit semper vobiscum is a preparation for the communion. Rather, for many or even most laypersons, the communal pax is a chatty, affective event or a furtive handshake, eyes averted.

    The communal pax is a cornerstone of progressive liturgical thought, so I don’t see it disappearing from most churches. And yet, if the communal pax poses so many interpretive problems, why desperately cling to it? The greeting and response by themselves sufficiently prepare all for the communion.

  5. Fergus Ryan

    It’s a pity the sign of peace is always optional, whereas in the past it was compulsory on given occasions and not done on others – only among those in the sanctuary and in choir, of course. A more formalized passing on of the peace might be in order also, like I’ve seen done by the Chaldeans – the servers leave the sanctuary to pass the sign of peace out from the altar, those in the front turn around and pass it to those behind them, and so on.

  6. Fr. Jack Feehily

    Could we please stop making the sign of peace a straw man to argue for more formal liturgy. In our parish the deacon issues the invitation. Within 60 to 75 seconds at most the ministers and I exchange the greeting with a simple embrace or handshake, I start moving the ciboria into place for the distribution and breaking of the bread. The latter signals the musicians to start the Lamb of God. Before you know it the folks who have briefly exchanged the peace are reverently receiving holy communion. C’mon, this is not rocket science nor does it signal the end of the world. After all, Christ is risen and everything is changed.


Posted

in

,

by

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading